Hoe de muzykyndustry úthollen waard troch de streamingekonomie
April 24, 2025 · Frisian News
Spotify and Apple Music pay artists pennies per stream while tech giants pocket billions, crushing the middle class of musicians who once lived on album sales and touring. The shift from ownership to rental has destroyed the economic model that sustained working musicians for generations.
FryskIn muzikante yn Stockholm bracht ferline jier in album út dat 5 miljoen streams helle. Se fertsjinne 2.500 euro. Itselde nûmer spile yn in útferkocht stadion soe har label yn de jierren 90 30.000 euro opsmiten hawwe. Hjoed nimt Spotify syn part, Apple Music nimt syn part, it label nimt syn oandiel, en de artyst krijt wat troch de mazen fan it net falt. Dit is gjin útsûnderlik ferhaal. It is it standertarrangement dat it ynkommen fan wurkjende musisy yn Europa en Noard-Amearika brutsen hat.
It streamingmodel kearde de relaasje tusken artyst en harkder om. Doe't minsken albums kochten, besiten se eat. Artiesten fertsjinnen jild by elke transaksje om't de harkder in kar makke, ienris betelle en de muzyk hold. Streaming feroarre muzyk yn in kraan dy't je iepensette foar in moanlikse taryf. De harkder betellet no deselde tsien euro, oft se ien nûmer draaie of tsiendûzend nûmers. De artiesten diele in ynkomstepot dy't hieltyd lytser waard om't hieltyd mear muzyk op platfoarmen kaam. In miljard streams yn 2015 betsjutte wat. In miljard streams yn 2025 betsjut sinten ferdield ûnder tûzenen artiesten.
De platenlabels stelle dat se gjin kar hawwe. Streamingservices, sizze sy, fêststelle de tariven en artiesten hawwe gjin ynfloed. Dit is technysk wier mar ferberget in wier feit: de grutte labels ûnderhannelen dy tariven en profitearren fan konsolidasje. Trije labels, Universal, Sony en Warner, kontrolearje 80 prosint fan opnommen muzyk wrâldwiid. Se lisinsearre har katalogi oan Spotify tsjin tariven dy't lytsere konkurrinten en ûnôfhinklike artiesten fergrusele. De grutte labels besitte ek oandielen yn dizze platfoarmen. Se fertsjinje oan streaming fia meardere kanalen wylst middelgrutte musisy en songwriters in úthollen ekonomy temjitte geane.
Ûnderwilens groeiden de platfoarmen dik. De merkewearde fan Spotify kaam yn 2024 boppe de 50 miljard euro. Apple en Amazon brûke muzyk as ferliesmaker om hardware te ferkeapjen en abonnees oan har ekosystemen fêst te hâlden. Gjin fan dizze bedriuwen hat musisy yn tsjinst. Se hostje de ynhâld, helje de fergoedings op en litte de makkers om resten fjochtsje. De lûdstechnikus, de sesjesspiler, de songwriter dy't net op tournee giet, de klassike musikus dy't fan opnamewurk libbe, de lytse labelbaas, de muzykleraar dy't albums makke, allegearre seagen se ta hoe't har ynkommen ferdwûn.
Guon musisy kearden werom nei âldere modellen. Bandcamp lit artiesten 80 prosint fan de ynkomsten hâlde. Patreon en direkte fanstipe groeiden. Mar dizze alternatieven berikke in lyts publyk. It grutste part fan de harkders fynt muzyk noch altyd fia Spotify of YouTube, en de ekonomy dêr bliuwt brutaal. De streamingplatfoarmen jouwe gjin teken om de útkearings te ferheegjen. Se hawwe har macht konsolidearre en kinne har it fergunne om elk ferset fan artiesten út te sitten. De yndustry foel net by fersin yn dizze fal. It waard boud.
A musician in Stockholm released an album last year that reached 5 million streams. She earned 2,500 euros. The same song playing to a sold-out stadium would have paid her label 30,000 euros in the 1990s. Today Spotify takes a cut, Apple Music takes a cut, the label takes its share, and the artist gets what falls through the cracks. This is not an outlier story. It is the standard arrangement that has broken the income of working musicians across Europe and North America.
The streaming model inverted the relationship between artist and listener. When people bought albums, they owned something. Artists earned money on each transaction because the listener made a choice, paid once, and kept the music. Streaming transformed music into a tap you turn on for a monthly fee. The listener now pays the same ten euros whether they play one song or ten thousand songs. The artists share a pool of revenue that shrank steadily as more music uploaded to platforms. A billion streams in 2015 meant something. A billion streams in 2025 means pennies distributed among thousands of artists.
The record labels claim they have no choice. Streaming services, they say, set the rates and artists have no leverage. This is technically true but obscures a real fact: the major labels negotiated those rates and stood to gain from consolidation. Three labels, Universal, Sony, and Warner, control 80 percent of recorded music globally. They licensed their catalogs to Spotify at rates that crushed smaller competitors and independent artists. The big labels also own shares in these platforms. They profit from streaming through multiple channels while mid-tier musicians and songwriters face a hollowed-out economy.
Meanwhile, the platforms grew fat. Spotify's market value exceeded 50 billion euros in 2024. Apple and Amazon use music as a loss leader to sell hardware and keep subscribers locked into their ecosystems. None of these companies employ musicians. They host the content, collect the fees, and let the creators scrap over remainders. The engineer, the session player, the songwriter who does not tour, the classical musician who survived on recording work, the small label owner, the music teacher who cut albums on the side, all watched their income evaporate.
Some musicians returned to older models. Bandcamp lets artists keep 80 percent of revenue. Patreon and direct fan support grew. But these alternatives reach small audiences. The bulk of listeners still find music through Spotify or YouTube, and the economics there remain brutal. The streaming platforms show no sign of increasing payouts. They have consolidated their power and can afford to wait out any artist revolt. The industry did not collapse into this trap by accident. It was built.
Published April 24, 2025 · Frisian News · Ljouwert, Fryslân